United States of America

Judicial system is a reference which should take an action for general public rights realization and eliminate legal abnormalities by issuing various decrees, and its judges can bring powerful rulers to justice because of having committed crimes; so if they won’t have enough autonomy, they can’t have a fair judgments. One of the conditions of judicial independence principle objectification, is independence of judicial system set from other organs of government, by means of powers separation principle. The first goal of powers separation, is assigning specialized tasks of government to separate organs and systems consists of experts. For this purpose, judicial system is responsible for resolving claims and disputes as well as criminal penalties and prosecuted. One of the intended principles is providing judicial independence and also general jurisdiction of judicial system in order to addressing disputes and committed crimes in the community level. The third principle of fundamental principles is judicial independence that has also been mentioned. But unfortunately this issue have been violated in laws of the Islamic Republic Iran and United States of America due to the existence of quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies. Moreover, existence of special court for the clergy in Iran is a clear violation of judicial independence. Principle of judicial branch separation from the other powers of government is the first step in organizational independence of the judicial system and can be found in multiple principles of the fundamental laws of both countries. However, despite the recognition of separation powers principle and respect independence for judicial system, again we see interference of powers and other institutions in functions of judicial system in both countries. In addition to that, in order to provide judicial independence in desirable and intended means of that, providing independence and impartiality of judge's also is required. This means that judges ruled out only with regard to the law, justice and equity, and do not pay any attention to the orders and wishes of others, and finally from this independently behavior, won’t fear from dismissal, downgrading the status and change the place of employment and jeopardizing their positions. This independence must be holistic, which means that judges must be independent not only within the judicial branch, and no person or authority shall not intervene in their votes and their decisions, but also outside the judicial branch and from no authority and office or other governmental entity and even public interest and thought should not be the slightest effect on his normal and impartial judgment, but rather should always consider justice, equity, law and human rights. In addition to these two concepts, magistrate also should observed impartiality within their and has the internal autonomy.

The United States’ relations with Cuba are rooted in the US intervention in the process of Cuba’s independence from Spain in the 1890s. The US preserved its interest-based approach towards Cuba during the first half of the 20th century, which culminated in the Cuba’s counter-hegemonic revolution in 1959. This revolution led to more than fifty years of hostility between two countries, which took a new form under President Obama’s administration. Indeed, Barack Obama and Raul Castro surprised the world in 2014, announcing that they would reinstate full diplomatic relations and pacify bilateral tensions. Since World War II, United States has been the hegemon of the world relying on three pillars of its liberal bloc, i.e. liberal values and culture, economic and military capabilities, and international organizations. However, during Obama’s administration, the occurrence of events such as the rise of new economic powers, Global Financial Crisis and the rise of left-turn in Latin America caused some speculations about the declining US hegemony and its transition to leadership. However, qualitative content analysis of the US Inter-American policies indicates that US hegemony in Latin America including Cuba is deeply rooted in the early decades of US formation. Moreover, the continuation of US economic embargo on Cuba and its long-lasting military presence in the island indicate that Obama’s policy did not provide a leveled playing field to resolve Cuba’s problems. Hence, US leadership in Cuba and true and equal partnership between both countries still seem unattainable. 

Today, the global system is formed based on multilateralism, which is based on international relations and the origin of international organizations and institutions. But this matter is endangered by the unilateralism pursued by the United States of America. Coercive unilateral measures such as sanctions, threats, military intervention, and even measures such as withdrawal from international treaties are exerted at high levels. Therefore, such actions by a country, which considers itself protector of the human rights and interests of the international police, are contrary to the international law and the United Nations Charter and must be opposed by the international community. This study has adopted a descriptive-analytical approach and is based on internationally accepted documents and procedures. Data collection is done using library and internet tools and relying on objective data. In this study, we seek to answer the critical question of whether the United States' unilateral and hostile sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran are legitimate in terms of international law and human rights. Our initial answer (hypothesis) to this question is that the hostile actions of the United States of America against the Iranian people are blatant violations of international human rights law following the resolutions of the UN and the Human Rights Council. The fundamental rights of the Iranian people, such health, life, and the right to development, in all its legitimate respects, have been directly influenced by the hostile and unilateral actions of the United States, and have a worrying impact on the human rights and life of the Iranians. The United States' actions also impede the establishment of lasting and comprehensive peace and security in the international arena. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine and evaluate the contradictions between the sanctions as one of the most essential enforced and hostile actions of the United States' government against the economic resources of the Iranian state and nation from the perspective of the international law and human rights.

The relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran has been a confrontational one in the past four decades and been influenced by the nature of the Islamic Revolution and its derived system. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States tried to expand its ideals and structure of the desired order by using the power components in international system as a hegemonic power. However, Iran generally considers the US hegemony as a special type of domination and given the nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran with a unique ideological discourse, the resistance against the domination hegemony is necessary and therefore counter-hegemonic strategies and policies have always been  Iranian policy priorities. This article aims to investigate the relationships between the two countries by using descriptive-analytical method in the framework of Neo-Gramscianism and in the hegemony power and counter-hegemony forms. The findings of the article show that in order to maintain its position of hegemony, the US has applied policies such as the coercive diplomacy, the soft warfare, de-legitimization of Iran and legitimization of the use of pressure through the international institutions against the country. In response Iran has tried to confront the US hegemonic position by adopting self-reliance policies, by making alliances and coalitions as well as pursuing independent political discourse in international system.

Globally, Internet censorship is on the rise and Iran has been portrayed as one of the most critical cases. So far, however, no studies have investigated the issue from an inside look. To fill this literature gap, the present paper aims to provide an overview of Internet censorship in Iran, by assessing the Iranian perspective on Internet freedom, different aspects of the subject, as well as the domestic and foreign types of limitations clients face today. This study has shown that Iran’s current filtering policy is a lenient one pursuing Internet development and simultaneously providing protection against potential threats. The Iranian case also includes some global issues such as censorship imposed due to the U.S. sanctions. Specifically, the findings of this study revealed that the range and extent of restrictions imposed on the Iranians’ access to mobile applications by the U.S. are significantly more than those placed by the Iranian filtering regime.

Following the Islamic revolution, Iran has consistently faced threats from neighboring countries and major global powers. In response to Iran's revolutionary stance and its challenging position in the international arena, the United States has imposed significant arms and military sanctions aimed at curbing Iran's influence in the region. However, drawing from historical lessons, Iran has adopted a deterrence strategy to counter external pressures. To compensate for its relative conventional military weaknesses and maintain deterrence against adversaries, Iran has prioritized the development and production of missile capabilities. This study delves into the development of Iran's missile capabilities and their correlation with U.S. arms embargoes. It seeks to answer whether these sanctions have effectively contained Iran's regional influence. Employing a Trend Impact analysis methodology that utilizes library resources, we will explore the trajectory of Iran's missile industry development under sanctions. Furthermore, we assess the efficacy of these sanctions on Iran's defense capabilities and military structure. The research findings indicate that U.S. military sanctions have failed to achieve their intended objectives and safeguard the interests of the U.S. and its regional allies. Contrary to assertions, the sanctions have strengthened Iran's missile capabilities and regional influence, solidifying the country's position as a regional power in the international system.